DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-20
Amended: claim 11
Withdrawn: 1-7 and 15-20
Elected and under examination: claims 8-14
Rejected: claims 8-14
The amendments obviate the previous objections, which are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Rong not being eligible as prior art are not found persuasive. Rong (US 20210158999 A1) was published on 05/27/2021, which is more than 1 year earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, of 08/12/2022. Therefore, Rong qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)(1), and as such, the 102(b)(2)(C) exception does not apply, which only applies to prior art references applied as prior art under § 102(a)(2).
The applicant’s arguments that Rong’s intermediate later is structurally and functionally distinct from the claimed interface portion (see page 6 of arguments) is not found persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which do not specify what structural limitations distinguish the claimed “portion(s)” from Rong’s layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong et al. (US 20210158999 A1).
Regarding claim 8, with regard to the claimed “A composite magnet comprising:
a magnetically-hard portion;
a magnetically-soft portion; and
an interface portion disposed between the magnetically-hard portion and the magnetically-soft portion”,
PNG
media_image1.png
614
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rong teaches a composite permanent magnet includes a first magnetically-hard layer formed from a compacted powder material and a magnetically-soft layer formed from a sheet material applied over the first magnetically-hard layer; the composite permanent magnet also includes a second magnetically-hard layer formed over the magnetically-soft layer (Abstract).
Rong teaches that the combination of the first magnetically-hard layer, the magnetically-soft layer, and the second magnetically-hard layer defines an anisotropic layered internal structure within the composite permanent magnet [0006], [0028]. Rong states that Each of the first layer, second layer, and third layer is combined such that the magnetically-soft material is interleaved between two adjacent layers of magnetically-hard material [0007]. The combination of these layers meets the claimed “magnetically-hard portion”, “magnetically soft portion”, and “an interface portion”.
With regard to the claimed “the interface portion including a lower grade magnetically-hard material than the magnetically-hard portion or a magnetically semi-hard material such that it is different than the magnetically-hard portion and the magnetically-soft portion”, Rong teaches that the second magnetically-hard layer having unique electromagnetic properties [0028], and that in the context of the schematic of FIG. 2, magnetically-hard center layer 208 may have different electromagnetic properties relative to the magnetically-hard outer layers 210, 212 [0028].
Therefore, although not explicitly described as having “a lower grade” of magnetically-hard material, if the layers are different, then one layer would necessarily have a lower grade of properties based on given criteria. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one material for a given position in the magnet, while selecting a second, lower-grade material as an interface layer, as doing so would allow for maintaining good magnetic properties while saving on material costs by using a different material with lower grade properties (see [0024], [0027], and [0029] which appreciates selection of materials based on manufacturing costs).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, although not explicitly described as having “a lower grade” of magnetically-hard material, if the layers are different, then one layer would necessarily have a lower grade of properties based on given criteria. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one material for a given position in the magnet, while selecting a second, lower-grade material as an interface layer, as doing so would allow for maintaining good magnetic properties while saving on material costs by using a different material with lower grade properties (see [0024], [0027], and [0029] which appreciates selection of materials based on manufacturing costs).
Therefore, in the case where the ‘interface layer’ of Rong as discussed above is a lower grade than the other magnetically hard layer, the ‘interface layer’ would have a coercivity lower than the other magnetically hard layer. However, because the ‘interface layer’ of Rong would still be a magnetically hard layer, it would still have a higher coercivity than the magnetically soft layer, which meets the claim limitation of the interface portion having a coercivity between the magnetically-hard portion and the magnetically-soft portion.
Regarding claim 10, although not explicitly stated, a hard magnet necessarily has a higher coercivity than a soft magnet, as this is the defining property of being magnetically hard vs. magnetically soft. As such, it naturally follows that the ‘magnetically hard portion’ will have a higher coercivity than a ‘magnetically soft portion’.
Regarding claims 11-12, Rong teaches that a first magnetically-hard layer is disposed at a first portion of the composite magnet and a second magnetically-hard layer having unique electromagnetic properties is disposed at a second portion of the composite magnet. In the context of the schematic of FIG. 2, magnetically-hard center layer 208 may have different electromagnetic properties relative to the magnetically-hard outer layers 210, 212 [0028].
Rong teaches that the magnetically-hard materials of layers 202 may be, but is not limited to, NdFeB, SmCo5 (both meeting claim 12) MnBi (meeting claim 11). Sm-Fe-C, or other suitable permanent magnet materials or compounds, or combinations thereof [0028]. The materials of magnetically-soft layers 204 may be, but are not limited to, Fe, Co, FeCo, Ni, or combinations thereof [0028]. The magnetically-soft layers may also, in some examples, comprise a semi-hard magnetic phase, such as, but not limited to, Al-Ni-Co, Fe-N, an L10-material, Mn-Al, Mn-Al-C, Mn-Bi, or other similar materials [0028].
Regarding claim 13, Rong teaches the magnet of claim 8 above, and further discusses using the magnets in an electric machine, such as in a rotor of an electric machine. A magnet being used in a rotor in an electric machine implies that the electric machine is an electric motor, which means there would be both a rotor and stator (also see [0027], which discusses that the electric machine is an electric motor).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong et al. (US 20210158999 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Rong 2 (US 20210234442 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Rong teaches the electric machine of claim 13 above, but is silent regarding a vehicle comprising a power system including the electric machine of claim 13.
Rong 2 teaches an electric machine that is configured to propel a vehicle includes a stator and a rotor (Abstract).
Rong teaches in [0012]:
The electric vehicle 10 includes a powertrain 12. The powertrain 12 includes an electric machine such as an electric motor/generator (M/G) 14 to propel the vehicle 10. The M/G 14 drives a transmission (or gearbox) 16. More specifically, the M/G 14 may be rotatably connected to an input shaft 18 of the transmission 16. The transmission 16 may be placed in PRNDSL (park, reverse, neutral, drive, sport, low) via a transmission range selector (not shown). The transmission 16 may have a fixed gearing relationship that provides a single gear ratio between the input shaft 18 and an output shaft 20 of the transmission 16. A torque converter (not shown) or a launch clutch (not shown) may be disposed between the M/G 14 and the transmission 16. Alternatively, the transmission 16 may be a multiple step-ratio automatic transmission. An associated traction battery 22 is configured to deliver electrical power to or receive electrical power from the M/G 14.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rong to use the electric machine of Rong in the vehicle of Rong 2, as doing so would allow for producing an electric vehicle with improved electric motor performance at a reduced cost (Rong, [0027]-[0029]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights